• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Deuce said:
Yes, I've always thought a nationwide decision was very unlikely in this case. The judges seem skittish to get too far out in front of this issue. I suspect their decision will be limited to California.

On the other hand, we've seen a cascade of states and even other nations making decisions on this very recently. SCOTUS might see the and just go "well, public support is rapidly changing so lets not worry about going too fast."
Click to expand...

Why Both Sides Want Gay Marriage Settled By The States : NPR

I guess the politics of SSM vary so much from state to state (Prop 8) that a sweeping decision wouldn't suit them. According to this article the issue has almost moved too fast in support for its proponents own good.

They didn't want a repeat of the abortion issue. With its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the high court stepped in and guaranteed a right to abortion but also triggered a backlash that has lasted for 40 years.

With same-sex marriage, by contrast, legislators and voters in nearly every state had the chance to make their feelings known before the Supreme Court weighs in.

"People forget that durable rights don't come from courts, they come from consensus and strong support from society," says Jonathan Rauch, author of Denial, a recent memoir about growing up gay. "We are winning the right to marriage in a bigger, deeper way by winning it in the court of public opinion."
Click to expand...
 
grip said:
Why Both Sides Want Gay Marriage Settled By The States : NPR

I guess the politics of SSM vary so much from state to state (Prop 8) that a sweeping decision wouldn't suit them. According to this article the issue has almost moved too fast in support for its proponents own good.
Click to expand...

The comparison between same sex marriage and abortion (RvW) has always been wrong. It is much closer to Loving than it ever could be to RvW because people's view on abortion has been about the same for a long time, around half for and half against, and there is two potential conflicts in rights here, mother's versus unborn child's. Same sex marriage however has been shown to be set on a straight line of increasing support that only continues to increase and, given the current younger generation support of same sex marriage, is only going to continue to increase with time (the younger generation does not support abortion in such greater numbers, if at all, than the older generation). With the Loving decision, over 70% of the country was against legalizing same sex marriage, particularly through a SCOTUS decision. Yet, it happened and the issue was basically resolved.
 
roguenuke said:
The comparison between same sex marriage and abortion (RvW) has always been wrong. It is much closer to Loving than it ever could be to RvW because people's view on abortion has been about the same for a long time, around half for and half against, and there is two potential conflicts in rights here, mother's versus unborn child's. Same sex marriage however has been shown to be set on a straight line of increasing support that only continues to increase and, given the current younger generation support of same sex marriage, is only going to continue to increase with time (the younger generation does not support abortion in such greater numbers, if at all, than the older generation). With the Loving decision, over 70% of the country was against legalizing same sex marriage, particularly through a SCOTUS decision. Yet, it happened and the issue was basically resolved.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the trajectory of support for gay marriage is a very recent phenomenem.
 
PotusHillary said:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Click to expand...
...."without due process of law". Gays are having their day in court, so if they lose, SSM bans are compliant with the 14th.
 
wbcoleman said:
Maybe, but the trajectory of support for gay marriage is a very recent phenomenem.
Click to expand...

So was the support for interracial marriage at the time of Loving. In fact, there was less national support for interracial marriage than there currently is for same sex marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
So was the support for interracial marriage at the time of Loving. In fact, there was less national support for interracial marriage than there currently is for same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the data from that period is. There is a significant difference, however, between Loving and the current cases, and that is that racial discrimination was the specific target and raison d'etre of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
roguenuke said:
The comparison between same sex marriage and abortion (RvW) has always been wrong. It is much closer to Loving than it ever could be to RvW because people's view on abortion has been about the same for a long time, around half for and half against, and there is two potential conflicts in rights here, mother's versus unborn child's. Same sex marriage however has been shown to be set on a straight line of increasing support that only continues to increase and, given the current younger generation support of same sex marriage, is only going to continue to increase with time (the younger generation does not support abortion in such greater numbers, if at all, than the older generation). With the Loving decision, over 70% of the country was against legalizing same sex marriage, particularly through a SCOTUS decision. Yet, it happened and the issue was basically resolved.
Click to expand...

I think you mean 70% against interracial marriage. Well, it's very different from abortion, which you'd still have the nuts attacking clinics if it were a state by state deal. The rhetoric hasn't changed at all since even before Roe v Wade. SSM has near 80% approval by the under 30 crowd. That's not going to lower much if any just because SCOTUS issues a sweeping verdict, much as interracial marriage support has only gone up. Either way, this is going to be a complete non issue very soon, which is why I think there is some chance the court ends this disgrace.
 
Last edited:
chromium said:
I think you mean 70% against interracial marriage. Well, it's very different from abortion, which you'd still have the nuts attacking clinics if it were a state by state deal. The rhetoric hasn't changed at all since even before Roe v Wade. SSM has near 80% approval by the under 30 crowd. That's not going to lower much if any just because SCOTUS issues a sweeping verdict. Either way, this is going to be a complete non issue very soon, which is why I think there is some chance the court ends this disgrace.
Click to expand...

If you're right you should hope and pray the court punts and allows the change to take place via democratic process.
 
roguenuke said:
So was the support for interracial marriage at the time of Loving. In fact, there was less national support for interracial marriage than there currently is for same sex marriage.
Click to expand...
I understand that interracial marriage didn't have 51% public support until the early 90s.
 
Helix said:
no.

this is about gay people having the same right to marry as heterosexuals currently have. while i really don't care if someone marries multiple people, it isn't the same equal protection issue, nor is it analogous for reasons which i've already explained.
Click to expand...
Gays have the same right to marry the opposit sex as heteros do. Heteros do not have any right to marry the same sex. Equil protection is already achieved.
 
roguenuke said:
Unless it is written into the contract or the laws governing the contract, it is not a legal requirement of the contract. So your assertion that one of the agreements the couple makes with the state in getting married is "a productive home and more little taxpayers" is legally not supported. In fact, given laws that say that certain couples can only marry if they cannot make "more little taxpayers", it goes to prove that you are trying to insert only your opinion into the marriage laws instead of what marriage laws are really about. The laws are about mainly protecting each spouse from each other and from others outside the relation that have some legal claim to kinship to either spouse, in exchange the couple agrees to take on certain legal/financial responsibility for the other as long as they are in the relationship.
Click to expand...
So instead of disagreeing on the nature of the license being private or with the state, you want to change gears and disagree over the terms of said license.

On another thread we are discussing a Pro Marriage Amendment. One of the key functions of this amendment is to bring the expectations of marriage out of case and common law and clearly enumberate them.

In the case law marriage is stated by SCOTUS to be for healthy procreation and stable relationships. This is a scope of behavior the state is willing to support with a license, while most behaviors within that scope are optional.

That some people choose to marry and not have children does not change the total scope of activities the state endorces for all. If you choose not to have children, the state chooses not to offer you certin benifits, such as a Child Tax Credit.

The scope of the license is a buffet of options. Only a couple things are required.
 
Last edited:
wbcoleman said:
I have no idea what the data from that period is. There is a significant difference, however, between Loving and the current cases, and that is that racial discrimination was the specific target and raison d'etre of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

And first, the Fourteenth has been expanded to include many types of discrimination in our laws because unjustifiable discrimination is wrong. Second, homosexuals are being specifically targeted by this law, even though it affects straights as well. There is no legitimate state interest being furthered by restricting marriage based on gender/sex, and that is what makes it a violation of equal protection.
 
Jerry said:
So instead of disagreeing on the nature of the license being private or with the state, you want to change gears and disagree over the terms of said license.

On another thread we are discussing a Pro Marriage Amendment. One of the key functions of this amendment is to bring the expectations of marriage out of case and common law and clearly enumberate them.

In the case law marriage is stated by SCOTUS to be for healthy procreation and stable relationships. This is a scope of behavior the state is willing to support with a license, while most behaviors within that scope are optional.
Click to expand...

And in case law, the SCOTUS has also declared that marriage is for more than just procreation. They stated as much in Turner since there was an exception made in Turner for those who had children/children on the way.
 
chromium said:
I think you mean 70% against interracial marriage. Well, it's very different from abortion, which you'd still have the nuts attacking clinics if it were a state by state deal. The rhetoric hasn't changed at all since even before Roe v Wade. SSM has near 80% approval by the under 30 crowd. That's not going to lower much if any just because SCOTUS issues a sweeping verdict, much as interracial marriage support has only gone up. Either way, this is going to be a complete non issue very soon, which is why I think there is some chance the court ends this disgrace.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you.
 
Jerry said:
Gays have the same right to marry the opposit sex as heteros do. Heteros do not have any right to marry the same sex. Equil protection is already achieved.
Click to expand...

"Blacks have the same right to marry whites do. Whites do not have any right to marry a different race. Equal protection is already achieved." Same argument was made during Loving.
 
roguenuke said:
"Blacks have the same right to marry whites do. Whites do not have any right to marry a different race. Equal protection is already achieved." Same argument was made during Loving.
Click to expand...
That's right. It was true then, it's true now, it will remain true after SSM becomes legal. Each sex has the same rights as the other sex.

Pro-SSM is about adding to the rights both sexes have.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
And first, the Fourteenth has been expanded to include many types of discrimination in our laws because unjustifiable discrimination is wrong. Second, homosexuals are being specifically targeted by this law, even though it affects straights as well. There is no legitimate state interest being furthered by restricting marriage based on gender/sex, and that is what makes it a violation of equal protection.
Click to expand...

The laws are not based on gender/sex. They are based upon sexual orientation in their effect and often on their face as well.
 
Fisher said:
The laws are not based on gender/sex. They are based upon sexual orientation in their effect and often on their face as well.
Click to expand...
The law is not based on sexual orientation. The law is based on sex.
 
Jerry said:
The law is not based on sexual orientation. The law is based on sex.
Click to expand...

No they are based on sexual orientation. They apply equally to men and women, virgins and sluts--whichever version of "sex" you are going with.
 
roguenuke said:
And in case law, the SCOTUS has also declared that marriage is for more than just procreation. They stated as much in Turner since there was an exception made in Turner for those who had children/children on the way.
Click to expand...
I believe that's what I just said. There is a scope of behavior being supported with the state marriage license, most of which is optional.

You don't have to buy a home, but if you do and your married then the government may have a few benifits to toss at you.

About the only thing the state requires spouses to do is live together the majority of the time, file taxes as "married", and not commit crime against eachother. It's also worth noting that spouces have a right to sexual relations with eachother. If a spouce decides to hold out, that spouce is committing a civil offence and can be sued by the other spouce for damages.

You don't have to use any license you ask for from the state. If you want to get a Class-A CDL and not ever operate a comercial vehicle, you can. That doesn't make much business sense but the government will still take your money.

You have a right to marry...you also have a right to own and carry a personal firearm. If you get your state's carry permit you are not then required to carry a gun. You can if you want to, but you could get the permit and never even own a gun.
 
Last edited:
Fisher said:
No they are based on sexual orientation. They apply equally to men and women, virgins and sluts--whichever version of "sex" you are going with.
Click to expand...
The law is not based on sexual orientation. The law is based on sex.
 
Jerry said:
Gays have the same right to marry the opposit sex as heteros do. Heteros do not have any right to marry the same sex. Equil protection is already achieved.
Click to expand...

We've already been over this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom